|
they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine difference
What were the "official" reasons by the way? I had just assumed a sound business plan of not competing with yourself. I feel I have missed some other anouncements from WotC which wold indicate our reasons. Could someone please either post a link or paraphrase.
Thanks,
S.
they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine differenceWhat were the "official" reasons by the way? I had just assumed a sound business plan of not competing with yourself. I feel I have missed some other anouncements from WotC which wold indicate our reasons. Could someone please either post a link or paraphrase.
Thanks,
S.
WotC_Trevor posted this:
"Hey all. I wanted to step in and shine a mote of light on the subject. First off, this cesation of PDF sales has absolutely nothing to do with the Internet Sales Policy. I know it's the 6th of April and I can definitely see how the two would appear linked, but the truth is, this is a completely seperate matter.
Unfortunately, due to recent findings of illegal copying and online distribution (piracy) of our products, Wizards of the Coast has decided to cease the sales of online PDFs. We are exploring other options for digitial distribution of our content and as soon as we have any more information I'll get it to you."
Of course anyone who supports pulling 3E material from the market in order to push 4E material clearly shows how much they want 3E fans to continue having fun and how much faith in 4E's ability to stand on its own merits they actually have.
I am not saying everyone who likes 4E is a fool - I am saying WotC probably thinks their customers are fools or they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine difference.I do say that anyone who believes WotC's reasons for pulling the PDFs is gullible, so if you believe them you're gullible. If you defend them using the stated reasons you're either gullible or dishonest.
I agree. Ever since they have claimed that power attack was too much for the average D&D player to cope with, I have been saying that wizards obviously thinks that their customers are idiots.
Of course, a lot of those customers who actually were idiots twisted my statements to make it seem that I insulted all wotc customers, but they're a bunch of insecure idiots who need to put people into drawers.
I also can't wrap my head around the idea that anyone could believe that spin-doctored crap about PDFs being pulled because of piracy, but if anyone like that is around, I have a number of famous landmarks for sale - get them while they last (I just sold the Satue of Liberty, but I have a sale on pyramids going right now).
And did you know that "gullible" isn't in the dictionary?
Also if their "unethical" behavior is "effecting" me.
That's what wizards (and other companies like that) is counting on. Divide and conquer.
A lot of people are selfish enough to be okay with unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour as long as they're not adversely affected.
Of course, wizards had it even better: Their fanboys didn't even not care about this, they also told others to shut the f~%& up if they weren't directly affected.
It's a nice little scheme, and allows you to screw people over one at a time, like cattle being slauhgtered one by one.
"Why should I care about police brutality? They only beat up black people". This is not the same scope, of course, but it illustrates the point: One day the cop might beat you up, mainly because they weren't disciplined enough due to lack of outrage when they beat others up.
The next edition they'll try to kill will be 4e, and they have a lot more weapons to use against it than they did with 3e. The GSL makes sure there will be no 4e equivalent to PFRPG. And if 5e is nothing like the game you want to play, you'll be the victim of your own callousness.
For now. Someday down the road it may change because Paizo does something that you don't like.
Maybe. Maybe not. In fact, except for some minor complaints about the way they run their boards, they have done absolutely nothing to make me stop considering them a trustworthy company. In fact, they have done nothing ot make me even believe that they might do something that will result in a loss of that trust.
Until then, I'll continue to buy their products, and help spread the word.
Example being the fact that I don't buy Paizo products anymore because I was forced to choose between 3.x modules that I would have to do all the work on conversions or the 4E DDI. It was a tough choice but ultimately the 4E stuff was more useful to me.
That's completely different. You stopped buying because they don't produce anything you can use.
You don't stop buying because of their ethics.
For example, there might be a few D&D minis, and maybe some other minor products, that I could find use for. But they won't get any of my money.
It is in mine:
gul·li·ble ['] adj. leichtgläubig, na'iv
It is in mine:
gul·li·ble ['] adj. leichtgläubig, na'iv
Thanks for playing along!
Thanks for playing along!It is in mine:
gul·li·ble ['] adj. leichtgläubig, na'iv
It is not in the dictionary of EN World mods, since they equate it to "dumb".
Some people have to much free time...Yeah. Those freaks.
And then they do dorky stuff. Like write articles about edition wars.
Or visit RPG message boards.
Bravo. KaeYoss, I loved your dorky post. A lot of good insight.
Here's the point. Paizo doesn't publish 4e materials. If I want to say I dislike something about 4e anywhere OTHER than the 4e section, and I want to have a discussion with like minded individuals, what I shouldn't have to do is consider the "feelings" of certain 4e fans (aptly called 4vengers) who take every small criticism of 4e as a personal attack. I should be able to criticize WotC's business and marketing practices without having to hear how "bitter" I am.
And, again, I ask: where's the hue and cry for a "Pathfinder safe" corner of the WotC boards? OR EnWorld? Or RPGNet? Paizo did a nice thing allowing a corner of their universe to exist to discuss their "rival's" product, with zero reciprocation. If it shocks you or offends youthat a lot of people coming here DON'T LIKE 4E, I don't know what to tell you.
Thank you, houstonderek, you articulate what I couldn't put into words.
The article rang true to me. I like the premise that places Paizo in the context of an anti-corporate fan rebellion with narrative control at stake. 4e is no longer D&D and has lost the right to be called that except in a worthless, legal sense. The game's fans trust the future of the game to Paizo.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet
I do say that anyone who believes WotC's reasons for pulling the PDFs is gullible, so if you believe them you're gullible. If you defend them using the stated reasons you're either gullible or dishonest.
Okay, so if I believe that WotC made a stupid decision and pulled all PDFs in a massive over-reaction to piracy (comparable to the RIAA suing grandmothers and six year olds, or Sony installing root kits on my PC via their music CDs), then I'm either a fool or dishonest? Am I allowed to "defend" WotC from the "charge" of lying or spin-doctoring with a "stupidity plea"? I'm just trying to understand whether I'm allowed to hold an opinion that differs from yours without being either stupid, gullible, or dishonest.
For the record, I believe the "official" explanation is only part of the reason behind WotC pulling the PDFs, but without proof, any theories I or anyone else might have as to why this decision was made are only speculation or opinion.
Of course anyone who supports pulling 3E material from the market in order to push 4E material clearly shows how much they want 3E fans to continue having fun and how much faith in 4E's ability to stand on its own merits they actually have.
I can't say I've ever seen anyone make a statement supporting the removal of 3E material so that 4E could benefit as a result, but then again, the internet does contain a lot of people whose opinions fall outside of "mainstream" thought and they aren't afraid to broadcast them. If someone has voiced these sentiments, then you are probably correct about that person's insecurities, but I think you would have difficulty finding many 4E fans who agree with them.
A lot of people are selfish enough to be okay with unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour as long as they're not adversely affected.
Sadly true. However I don't believe that WotC has engaged in unethical, immoral or illegal behaviour, but you obviously feel differently and are basing your purchasing decisions on this belief. I commend you for that and wish more people were willing to be "ethical consumers".
The next edition they'll try to kill will be 4e, and they have a lot more weapons to use against it than they did with 3e. The GSL makes sure there will be no 4e equivalent to PFRPG. And if 5e is nothing like the game you want to play, you'll be the victim of your own callousness.
If 5E is nothing like the game I want to play, then I won't play it. I'm glad that 3.5 is getting continued support from Paizo and others (though it might take some time for me to convince my 3.5 DM to switch to PFRPG), but I also recognise that the OGL was a "unique" occurrence in the history of D&D. When I decided not to switch to 2E when it was released, I lost ongoing support for 1E but that didn't stop me from continuing to play it as our group still had it's greatest assets, our creativity and imaginations.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That is "Hanlon's Razor" named after Robert J Hanlon. There is an earlier quote attributed questionably to Napoleon: "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."Hey Matt where did you grab that quote?
"Never blame on malice, what can be explained by stupidity."
Thank you. I knew it was a quote but was unsure of its attribution.
4e is no longer D&D and has lost the right to be called that except in a worthless, legal sense.
*trys to keep minkscooter quiet before the lawyers realise that the legal system was only invented to keep them busy and away from us normal folks*
Edit: apologies to any lawyers who might be offended by this, but for the sake of my sanity, I needed to post something a little less serious after my previous post :D
Okay, so if I believe that WotC made a stupid decision and pulled all PDFs in a massive over-reaction to piracy (comparable to the RIAA suing grandmothers and six year olds, or Sony installing root kits on my PC via their music CDs), then I'm either a fool or dishonest?
Yes. If they really were that dumb they'd have corrected their mistake by now, after all the negative PR this generated. The fact that they did not means they have other reasons.
For the record, I believe the "official" explanation is only part of the reason behind WotC pulling the PDFs, but without proof, any theories I or anyone else might have as to why this decision was made are only speculation or opinion.
What reason would and could there be for the removal of the old PDFs, other than "Let's force people to buy 4E by removing alternatives"?
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I am not saying everyone who likes 4E is a fool - I am saying WotC probably thinks their customers are fools or they'd not have tried to feed them their stupid "reasons" for pulling 3.X PDFs. That's a fine difference.I do say that anyone who believes WotC's reasons for pulling the PDFs is gullible, so if you believe them you're gullible. If you defend them using the stated reasons you're either gullible or dishonest.
I agree. Ever since they have claimed that power attack was too much for the average D&D player to cope with, I have been saying that wizards obviously thinks that their customers are idiots.
Of course, a lot of those customers who actually were idiots twisted my statements to make it seem that I insulted all wotc customers, but they're a bunch of insecure idiots who need to put people into drawers.
My dog obviously thinks you're both stupid. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that's what my dog thinks. Hopefully, you're not one of those idiots who needs to put people in drawers and twist my statement to make it seem like I'm saying that I think you're stupid (and, reading my statement in that way, would probably make you stupid, so I really don't think you should do that). It's just my guess as to what my dog thinks about you.
My dog obviously thinks you're both stupid. I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm just saying that's what my dog thinks. Hopefully, you're not one of those idiots who needs to put people in drawers and twist my statement to make it seem like I'm saying that I think you're stupid (and, reading my statement in that way, would probably make you stupid, so I really don't think you should do that). It's just my guess as to what my dog thinks about you.
Well, if you truly believe WotC was really that dumb and had not other reasons for pulling the PDFs than piracy, and still buy their stuff then that would make you either a fool, or someone who follows a fool. And who would be the bigger fool of those two is another question.
But then I don't assume stupidity where malice is more plausible.
Okay, so if I believe that WotC made a stupid decision and pulled all PDFs in a massive over-reaction to piracy (comparable to the RIAA suing grandmothers and six year olds, or Sony installing root kits on my PC via their music CDs), then I'm either a fool or dishonest?Yes. If they really were that dumb they'd have corrected their mistake by now, after all the negative PR this generated. The fact that they did not means they have other reasons.
For the record, I believe the "official" explanation is only part of the reason behind WotC pulling the PDFs, but without proof, any theories I or anyone else might have as to why this decision was made are only speculation or opinion.What reason would and could there be for the removal of the old PDFs, other than "Let's force people to buy 4E by removing alternatives"?
We're getting slightly off-track here. My point was that it doesn't matter what reason you or I might believe is behind the removal of the old PDFs, because without proof we are both in the realm of speculation and opinion rather than the realm of fact. As such, I believe that calling someone stupid, gullible or dishonest for having an opinion different from your own isn't proper conduct for these boards.
Engage in debate and discussion all you want, but please respect the fact that other people may not share your opinion.
Kirth, have you posted anything about this system anyhere? I once used the 007 rules for a modern-day psionics campaignette, and it worked quite well.
Mostly just anecdotes here and there. I found that, for standard D&D-style adventures, combat in the 007 rules is WAY too deadly; combats last a couple of rounds max, and dead PCs litter the floors. Which is a lot of fun if you're playing a stealth- or investigation-heavy game with wizards and rogues, but sucks if someone wants to play, say, a barbarian.
We're getting slightly off-track here. My point was that it doesn't matter what reason you or I might believe is behind the removal of the old PDFs, because without proof we are both in the realm of speculation and opinion rather than the realm of fact. As such, I believe that calling someone stupid, gullible or dishonest for having an opinion different from your own isn't proper conduct for these boards.Engage in debate and discussion all you want, but please respect the fact that other people may not share your opinion.
Of course I repsect the fact that other people have other opinions - but I do not have to respect their opinion, especially not if it amounts to "oh, well, as long as we do not have proof there really could be a nigerian heiress in need of $ 25'000 to free up her fortune she wants to share with me, so anyone who calls me a fool for sending her money is being mean to me and doesn't respect my opinion".
In other words: It does matter what you believe.
As long as you've got that dictionary handy, you might want to look up "plausible." It should be shortly after "paranoid."
But then I don't assume stupidity where malice is more plausible.
You certainly are not as naive as you pretend to be.
It was a shocker, we played 3 Paizo AP's that were meant to go from 1st - 20th but most we stopped at 16th as the rules just did not support sensible high level play. Even Paizo's excellent stories couldn't save the fundamental brokeness of high level 3.5e play.
Thinking that both 3.5e & 4e aren't as good as AD&D in equal proportions... That's fair.
That's more or less my attitude as well. And Pathfinder doesn't really seem to be fixing 3.5 (backwards-compatibility sort of prevents that), but I'll probably play it just because Paizo keeps writing APs for it. And, hallelujah, they seem to realize that, at least if the stopping at 15th level of the APs now (when everything in 3.X goes pear-shaped) rather than 20th level is any indication.
For the record, I believe the "official" explanation is only part of the reason behind WotC pulling the PDFs, but without proof, any theories I or anyone else might have as to why this decision was made are only speculation or opinion.What reason would and could there be for the removal of the old PDFs, other than "Let's force people to buy 4E by removing alternatives"?
I am not sure if you realize something, and based on posts like this it appears as if you might not. That is, WotC pulled ALL pdfs. Not just old ones for editions they are no longer actively supporting but also pdfs for the actual system being supported currently (that being 4e). This occurred after actual proof was found that of a pirated pdf coming from a purchase from a legal seller (the seller didn't pirate it, the buyer did) within a day of release. Was this the ONLY reason to choose to stop selling pdfs? Perhaps not, but it might have the final reason, the last straw that broke the camel's back, as they say. So it might not be a lie or naive to say that it is because of pirated pdfs that they stopped selling them, because if it had not happened within a day they might not have pulled them, but it may not be the whole story either.
I am not sure if you realize something, and based on posts like this it appears as if you might not. That is, WotC pulled ALL pdfs. Not just old ones for editions they are no longer actively supporting but also pdfs for the actual system being supported currently (that being 4e). This occurred after actual proof was found that of a pirated pdf coming from a purchase from a legal seller (the seller didn't pirate it, the buyer did) within a day of release. Was this the ONLY reason to choose to stop selling pdfs? Perhaps not, but it might have the final reason, the last straw that broke the camel's back, as they say. So it might not be a lie or naive to say that it is because of pirated pdfs that they stopped selling them, because if it had not happened within a day they might not have pulled them, but it may not be the whole story either.
It is pointless. Don't try. I ripped his argument about broken SC up and he refused to believe and even tried to paint me in a bad light. Don't know what the light was again since I can't be bothered to look it up.
|
I'm not sure how anyone can frame the pulling of PDF's in ethical terms. The PDF's are WotC's to sell or not as they choose. We can disagree with their decision, or at most criticize them for possible dishonesty about their motivations, but ultimately they were under no obligation to explain their actions at all.
Suggesting that people who purchase 4e products are supporting an unethical or illegal enterprise is absurd.
Reminding people who purchase 4e products that WotC is under no obligation to support those products, and can stop doing so at any time, isn't telling anyone anything they don't already know.
Is it too much to suggest that people buy the products for no other reason than that they like the products? I don't see how that decision can be a moral one. If people dislike WotC's decisions to the point where they refuse to buy anything else from them, that is their prerogative. That does not make people who like the products and choose to buy them gullible, selfish, immoral, foolish, or anything else.
If you like going to Taco Bell to buy chicken burritos, and I like beef burritos, and one day they decide to stop selling chicken, you would be right to stop going there. If I continue to go there to buy beef burritos, that doesn't mean I'm a fool for ignoring the fact that some day they could stop selling beef. It just means I like their product, and as long as they are selling products I like, I will buy them. I can feel badly for you that you can't get your chicken anymore, but you haven't been wronged, and continuing to eat there wouldn't be unethical or foolish in the least.
I am not sure if you realize something, and based on posts like this it appears as if you might not. That is, WotC pulled ALL pdfs. Not just old ones for editions they are no longer actively supporting but also pdfs for the actual system being supported currently (that being 4e). This occurred after actual proof was found that of a pirated pdf coming from a purchase from a legal seller (the seller didn't pirate it, the buyer did) within a day of release. Was this the ONLY reason to choose to stop selling pdfs? Perhaps not, but it might have the final reason, the last straw that broke the camel's back, as they say. So it might not be a lie or naive to say that it is because of pirated pdfs that they stopped selling them, because if it had not happened within a day they might not have pulled them, but it may not be the whole story either.
"After it was pirated we'll stop piracy by removing legal access to it"
strikes you as a plausible reason? Can I interest you in a joint-venture in Nigeria?It is pointless. Don't try. I ripped his argument about broken SC up and he refused to believe and even tried to paint me in a bad light. Don't know what the light was again since I can't be bothered to look it up.
You didn't rip up anything. If you really believe you can defend the Skill Challenges head over here.
I'm not sure how anyone can frame the pulling of PDF's in ethical terms. The PDF's are WotC's to sell or not as they choose. We can disagree with their decision, or at most criticize them for possible dishonesty about their motivations, but ultimately they were under no obligation to explain their actions at all.
Suggesting that people who purchase 4e products are supporting an unethical or illegal enterprise is absurd.
The lies about the reasons for the move are the unethical part. Dishonesty itself is unethical.
I guess "We don't want to sell old PDFs anymore to force everyone to buy 4E" doesn't sound as good.
And the "We were getting pirated, so we had to pull all PDFs to avoid more losses" is a lie as well - the PDF sales were the only form WotC sent older editions in, they went from selling a certain number of PDFs and hypothetical losses to piracy to no sales at all.
Pulling the 4E PDFs is one thing - they sell that IP in hardcover and DDI form - but pulling the 3E and older material is another thing.
Also if their "unethical" behavior is "effecting" me.That's what wizards (and other companies like that) is counting on. Divide and conquer.
A lot of people are selfish enough to be okay with unethical, immoral and illegal behaviour as long as they're not adversely affected.
Of course, wizards had it even better: Their fanboys didn't even not care about this, they also told others to shut the f#@! up if they weren't directly affected.
It's a nice little scheme, and allows you to screw people over one at a time, like cattle being slauhgtered one by one.
"Why should I care about police brutality? They only beat up black people". This is not the same scope, of course, but it illustrates the point: One day the cop might beat you up, mainly because they weren't disciplined enough due to lack of outrage when they beat others up.
The next edition they'll try to kill will be 4e, and they have a lot more weapons to use against it than they did with 3e. The GSL makes sure there will be no 4e equivalent to PFRPG. And if 5e is nothing like the game you want to play, you'll be the victim of your own callousness.
If I wanted to get political, I could also introduce an analogy. One where only people making over $250,000 a year were going to get their taxes raised and that people who would never make that much were dumb for being against it. And then all kinds of other small taxes are introduced that actually hit people making less than $250,000 harder than those making more (things like increased gas taxes, taxes on cigarettes, taxes on soda, etc). If I wanted to political, yes I would show that I understand the idea of looking the other way until it comes back to bite you in the arse.
And yet, this is not at all relevent to the issue at hand. WotC did not act in an unethical, immoral, or illegal way. A stupid way? Very likely.
"But they stole the magazines from Paizo!" Nope, they didn't renew a contract they had with Paizo. This is quite standard within most businesses, why the gaming community should be special is beyond me. Also WotC extended the contract so that Paizo could finish their last adventure path. That is hardly an immoral or unethical decision on their part.
"But they said that grapple was dumb and too hard!" Yeah, and so did Paizo, that is why they introduced a new mechanic for it.
"But they created a new edition just to sell books, they didn't care about the existing fan base!" And other companies are not?
"But they pooped on fans of older editions!" As a fan of an older edition, I can tell you they didn't poop on me, but then again I don't troll sites and whine about how 4e is WoW either. They also poked fun at their own fanboys with all of the kobolds worshipping them.
As for the next edition, what do I care? I am sticking with 3.5, I am not giving up my core books, not for WotC, not for Paizo, not for anyone. All print companies have abandoned me, for very legitimate reasons most likely, so I'll learn to get along. Hey, maybe when PFRPG comes out finally, 3.5 materials will drop down to the prices of 3e materials (e.g. MM $20-> $2). That would be awesome for me since you need like 5 MM to run a dragon straight out of the book (but I love that).
"After it was pirated we'll stop piracy by removing legal access to it"
strikes you as a plausible reason? Can I interest you in a joint-venture in Nigeria?
So your contention is that even without legal ways of purchasing a high quality pdf, that within 1 day of the release of a book, there will be high quality (printer quality) pdfs out there to be pirated?
I have some ocean-front property in Kansas you might be interested in.
"After it was pirated we'll stop piracy by removing legal access to it"
strikes you as a plausible reason? Can I interest you in a joint-venture in Nigeria?So your contention is that even without legal ways of purchasing a high quality pdf, that within 1 day of the release of a book, there will be high quality (printer quality) pdfs out there to be pirated?
I have some ocean-front property in Kansas you might be interested in.
No, my point is that after something was already pirated, removing it makes no sense anymore. Especially not if by removing you stop getting any revenue from it since you're not selling it in any form anymore.
I don't really care about the new PDFs they did not publish, I care about the older PDFs that were already published.
Removing the older PDFs did nothing to battle piracy, they were already in circulation. Quite the opposite in fact, sicne by not offering legal versions of them anymore it probably drove up piracy of them.
Get it now?
"After it was pirated we'll stop piracy by removing legal access to it"
strikes you as a plausible reason? Can I interest you in a joint-venture in Nigeria?So your contention is that even without legal ways of purchasing a high quality pdf, that within 1 day of the release of a book, there will be high quality (printer quality) pdfs out there to be pirated?
I have some ocean-front property in Kansas you might be interested in.
I'm not sure the quality is relevant. You're also ignoring the fact that those who were purchasers must now pirate or do without.
I think Fuchs is out-of-line and unnecessarily combative, and I don't agree that anyone who believes that piracy was the reason to stop selling PDFs is either dumb or naive. But he is right that pulling PDFs will increase piracy rather than reduce it. WotC made the classic, circa 1995 RIAA-style blunder; they panicked and acted rashly, and everyone suffered. I don't think they lied; I just think they don't get it--at all. Which is a shame, but they'll have to face reality sooner or later.
No, my point is that after something was already pirated, removing it makes no sense anymore. Especially not if by removing you stop getting any revenue from it since you're not selling it in any form anymore.
I don't really care about the new PDFs they did not publish, I care about the older PDFs that were already published.
Removing the older PDFs did nothing to battle piracy, they were already in circulation. Quite the opposite in fact, sicne by not offering legal versions of them anymore it probably drove up piracy of them.
Get it now?
So you are not challenging their claim with respect to new material, just with respect to older material? So they may actually be at least partially honest when saying that piracy did effect the decision (pull ALL the pdfs)?
I guess "We don't want to sell old PDFs anymore to force everyone to buy 4E" doesn't sound as good.And the "We were getting pirated, so we had to pull all PDFs to avoid more losses" is a lie as well - the PDF sales were the only form WotC sent older editions in, they went from selling a certain number of PDFs and hypothetical losses to piracy to no sales at all.
The world simply isn't that black and white. They probably had multiple reasons for doing what they did, including something like "focusing on a single vision of what the D&D brand is going forward in order to better leverage our core competencies and produce a synergistic blah blah blah," but I do think they made the final decision to pull the 4E pdfs as a reaction to piracy. It's a guess, but I think that they then decided they may as well pull all PDFs, since they didn't want only older editions available in PDF, and sales of older editions products may not have justified the trouble.
I think it was an amazingly bad decision, but I don't think it was driven by malice.
|
|
Umm ... that was a long, long time ago.
5th Edition 40K supports everything back to 3rd edition codex, and some of the molds for things like Terminators are over 7 years old.
Not getting many games with my Squats these days. At least WotC put Gnomes back in!
S.
HAHA! Ya, you got me there.
The Space Dwarves were certainly something I wasn't expecting to lose a debate to. Touche.
So you are not challenging their claim with respect to new material, just with respect to older material? So they may actually be at least partially honest when saying that piracy did effect the decision (pull ALL the pdfs)?
No. Pulling the PDFs already available had nothing to do with piracy since those were pirated and in circulation already. Refusing to publish PDFs of future 4E books might have been motivated by piracy concerns, as well as being a way to push the DDI.
The world simply isn't that black and white. They probably had multiple reasons for doing what they did, including something like "focusing on a single vision of what the D&D brand is going forward in order to better leverage our core competencies and produce a synergistic blah blah blah," but I do think they made the final decision to pull the 4E pdfs as a reaction to piracy. It's a guess, but I think that they then decided they may as well pull all PDFs, since they didn't want only older editions available in PDF, and sales of older editions products may not have justified the trouble.
I think it was an amazingly bad decision, but I don't think it was driven by malice.
The alternative would be stupidity on WotC's part of a magnitude that's simply implausible for a corporation made up (at least partially) of reasonably intelligent people with some internet experience.
No, I do not believe WotC are that stupid. If I believed they were that stupid I certainly wouldn't touch anything they publish with a ten-foot pole. That would be like trying to drive a car built by someone unable to figure out how to open a door.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
WotC made the classic, circa 1995 RIAA-style blunder; they panicked and acted rashly, and everyone suffered. I don't think they lied; I just think they don't get it--at all. Which is a shame, but they'll have to face reality sooner or later.
I thought that blunder was "Never get involved in a land war in Asia"?
And I do think it was stupidity rather than malice. I just wish they'd reverse the mistake.
Uninteded consequences moment: By -not- ever adding to their OGL content, they hurt their long term revenue stream possibly. People will still have an interest in Green Ronin, Necromancer Games, Malhavoc and others as Paizo and people who write 3pp for Pathfinder, use their products.
Hopefully WotC has learned this much at least for 4.x and their GSL.
The alternative would be stupidity on WotC's part of a magnitude that's simply implausible for a corporation made up (at least partially) of reasonably intelligent people with some internet experience.No, I do not believe WotC are that stupid. If I believed they were that stupid I certainly wouldn't touch anything they publish with a ten-foot pole. That would be like trying to drive a car built by someone unable to figure out how to open a door.
Honest question: Have you ever worked in a white-collar job for a major corporation? Because I believe you are drastically over-estimating the efficiency and effectiveness of corporate decision making.
I agree that WotC is made up of "reasonbly intelligent people." Contrary to common sense, corporations made up of smart people make blindingly stupid decisions every day. Corporate decision making is often by committee, and/or represents a compromise that serves the needs of exactly no one.
Wasn't there something about "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" upthread? :)
Is it unethical for a company to turn a profit?
Not at all.
The problem is that some people think the responsibility to maximize shareholder value somehow absolves a corporation of all of its other responsibilities. It does not.
The lies about the reasons for the move are the unethical part. Dishonesty itself is unethical.
I guess "We don't want to sell old PDFs anymore to force everyone to buy 4E" doesn't sound as good.
And the "We were getting pirated, so we had to pull all PDFs to avoid more losses" is a lie as well - the PDF sales were the only form WotC sent older editions in, they went from selling a certain number of PDFs and hypothetical losses to piracy to no sales at all.
Pulling the 4E PDFs is one thing - they sell that IP in hardcover and DDI form - but pulling the 3E and older material is another thing.
So they pull all PDFs from the market under the "disguise" of combating piracy, thereby costing them potential sales, particularly of older out-of-print material, when their real aim is to "force everyone to buy 4E".
So why is all the old free 3E material they released on their website still available from the archives section of said website? Did they forget to remove it, or was it part of their crafty plan to make us believe the piracy "cover story"?
|
|
Honest question: Have you ever worked in a white-collar job for a major corporation? Because I believe you are drastically over-estimating the efficiency and effectiveness of corporate decision making.
I agree that WotC is made up of "reasonbly intelligent people." Contrary to common sense, corporations made up of smart people make blindingly stupid decisions every day. Corporate decision making is often by committee, and/or represents a compromise that serves the needs of exactly no one.
That's the story of my life. Every major corporation I have ever worked for or had dealings with is exactly the same in this respect, and I have no reason to expect Wizards/Hasbro to be any different.
Wasn't there something about "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" upthread? :)
I've met too many criminals to believe that every act can be adequately explained by stupidity.
In this case WotC had ample time and opportunity to correct a mistake, but didn't so, so I can't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake.
|
|
So they pull all PDFs from the market under the "disguise" of combating piracy, thereby costing them potential sales, particularly of older out-of-print material, when their real aim is to "force everyone to buy 4E".
So why is all the old free 3E material they released on their website still available from the archives section of said website? Did they forget to remove it, or was it part of their crafty plan to make us believe the piracy "cover story"?
Considering the state of "Digital Initiative" I wouldn't be surprised that if you asked some WotC person about 3ed material on the website they would answer "Wait, we have any ?".
C'mon, we're talking about the company which closed the Mind Flayer IP ... and then smacked the Neothelid right into SRD. :)
In this case WotC had ample time and opportunity to correct a mistake, but didn't so, so I can't give them the benefit of the doubt and assume it was a mistake.
Corporations (like people) are notoriously unwilling to admit mistakes.
Look, it's obvious we aren't going to agree. You might want to tone down your rhetoric anyway, because it is needlessly insulting.
In other words: It does matter what you believe.
Nor does it matter what you believe. Or what anyone else believes. What matters is what one can prove, and you've failed to prove that your opinion is the correct one. So while I agree that some things are a matter of fact, and the number of people holding a contrary opinion is irrelevant, I don't see what that has to do with your point. I'm sorry.
Corporations (like people) are notoriously unwilling to admit mistakes.
I would go further and suggest that a corporation's unwillingness to admit mistakes will often lead them to further compound the error as time goes on...
In this specific instance, I predict that WotC will attempt to replace PDFs with a method of digital distribution that is so flawed and/or unwieldy that it will have to be eventually scrapped. Of course, the more money they spend trying to fix it, the longer it will take them to realize it will never work... :P
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The alternative would be stupidity on WotC's part of a magnitude that's simply implausible for a corporation made up (at least partially) of reasonably intelligent people with some internet experience.
No, I do not believe WotC are that stupid. If I believed they were that stupid I certainly wouldn't touch anything they publish with a ten-foot pole. That would be like trying to drive a car built by someone unable to figure out how to open a door.
Real Life Example.
JC Penny used to have an insurance division. They decided to install a new server and OS. To save costs, they switched everything, at once, to the new server and OS. The resulting mistakes ended up spelling the doom of JC Penny's insurance division.
In hindsight yes, that seems extremely stupid. OTOH, the reason I learned about that mess was I was in a class with a trainer used to work there and I said, "Why doesn't <my employer> just jump everything to the new processing engine at once, instead of using both the old and new systems?" Now I'm not an IT person, but I'm sure JC Penny had several well paid people with degrees who said "Sure, it can handle it!"
I'm sure that a lot of bean counters said "We're losing x to piracy! We need to take down all our PDfs before we lose anymore!" Without thinking plan be through.
Or to put it another way. What has WotC gained from taking down the PDFs?
Or to put it another way. What has WotC gained from taking down the PDFs?
A metric ton of ill-will.
A metric ton of ill-will.
Or to put it another way. What has WotC gained from taking down the PDFs?
Well at least it's not an imperial ton... :P
Edit: spelling...